Wednesday, June 29, 2011

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

I have decided to close comments on some of the future essays I post here at Gates of Vienna. I will continue to write about controversial subjects, and I suspect that my most controversial texts have yet to be written. However, precisely due to the sensitive nature of some of the issues we talk about here we have to carefully balance how we present them if we want it to have an effect and let the message sink in with the right people. If you walk into a minefield you have to be extra careful with what you do, otherwise the result could be unpleasant.

I believe we are about to enter a prolonged period of great turbulence, financially, politically and ethnically, possibly involving wars in several Western countries as a direct consequence of non-European mass immigration. I will continue to talk about these issues, as I have done in the past, but I know from experience that these subjects have the potential to trigger a great deal of online turbulence that is not always very fruitful. For this reason, I will close comments when dealing with the most controversial subject-matters. I don’t intend to close comments on all of my posts but will watch how it goes with this policy for the time being.

Several recent threads here were ruined by people who have a monomaniacal obsession about a certain topic, and cannot stop themselves from destroying a normal conversation, even when their preoccupation has little or nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Fjordman was distressed by that, and he also knows how much of my time it takes to police those mudfests -- sometimes five or six hours a day, during the thick of things.

He and I discussed the issue, and we decided that this would be the best course when the topic of an essay is one that we know will bring out the monomaniacs.

Pierre: No, I am convinced that this was the right decision. I intend to publish even more controversial essays in the future, including about the possible disintegration of the USA as well as of the European Union. This blog attracts so many different kinds of people from all over the world that such topics have the potential to generate far more noise than serious debate. This trend has already been present for some time. Comments are useful if they add an extra dimension to and enhance the quality of the post. If they don’t do this, why have them?

Indeed, I do know this, and I'm sorry for sounding like I'm whining. One of the things I forgot when I wrote my little sulk is that very thing, and this very thing: This is your blog, not mine, and you may do as you see best for your blog. Thank you for the gentle reminder, Dymphna.

I agree that the topics that touch on something that begins with a J, and ends with....well, nevermind, THOSE topics can bring out the "monomaniacal". I hope, however, that topics that touch on I.Q. "differences" will remain open for comment. The emphasis Fjordman places on it is both ill-founded and downright dangerous. He, and others like him, need to hear opposing views --for the good of us all.

Hell in a Handcart: All sounds like a cover for stifling dissenting voices to moi, much like our erstwhile foe.

If you had any appreciation for just how "open" and un-stifled this web site really is, you might not have made such a comment.

All of this is lamentable but understandable. I, too, saw the recent threads in question ― including one that I specifically requested ― get derailed, thus preventing or obstructing legitimate discussion.

As I see it, Fjordman's intent is to, at least, get these ideas out into the open where they can be assimilated (or not), without opening the door for slander and misinformation that can interfere with simple absorption of said information.

This is especially so in the case of newcomers who are less inclined to wade through reams of contentious commentary, especially such vitriolic material as we have seen of late.

That this sort of civilized discourse on certain topics, evidently, cannot be achieved without closure of comments is a sad indictment of just how far gone some sectors of society are.

… I’ve said many times before; the treatment of Jews in a society is a marker of the society in general. When things go sour for Jews it does not portend well for the rest. So while this Delta [codesharing] deal is a small story on paper its another check on a recently expanding list of acceptable slights against the rights of a segment of our citizenry. [emphasis added]

I have followed this blog on and off for years, actually, and I have seen many examples I would consider to be stifling. Or do I have to agree with you here also?

And out of interest, who exactly decides what constitutes *legitimate discussion* and what constitutes *derailment*? Are we back to the *its my blog, agree or leave* line again? If so, fine, but don't tell any of us that any discussion using reason and fact is illegitimate or *uncivilised.*

And I would substitute the keyword you have in your quote for *free speech* and maybe *factual debate.*

Seneca III is still unable to post Blogger comments. He emailed me the following response, and asked me to post it here.

======

Fjordman,

“I believe we are about to enter a prolonged period of great turbulence, financially, politically and ethnically, possibly involving wars in several Western countries as a direct consequence of non-European mass immigration.”

I agree, without equivocation or qualification.

This is the only thing that we should be thinking about and preparing for. All else is dross and hubris.

@SenecaI agree, except for one thing: Fjordman's gravitation towards I.Q.-based tribalism as a possible way of weathering the storm is ill-founded and dangerous. He needs to hear opposing views. History alone should show us why. If he doesn't like criticism, then he needs a thicker skin (although I agree with him that the "J" issue tends to draw the unhinged).

Hell in a Handcart: I have followed this blog on and off for years, actually, and I have seen many examples I would consider to be stifling.

Then you and I have very different definitions of the concept. I have seen few other blogs that promote and encourage such a consistently high level of free speech.

Feel free to cite some actual incidents (with URLs), of commenters or topics that were "stifled" if you wish to be taken seriously.

Or do I have to agree with you here also?

No you do not and you can take that chip off your shoulder any time. As Nilk already noted, you seem to be lugging around some sort of pre-packed psychological baggage. Maybe you shouldn't bother to unpack those bags here. Just sayin'.

I disagree strenuously with Fjordman: I don't believe "we are about to enter a prolonged period of great turbulence, financially, politically and ethnically, possibly involving wars in several Western countries as a direct consequence of non-European mass immigration."

I believe, in fact, that a cultivation of this quasi-apocalyptic alienation by a sufficient number of Westerners could, however, contribute to considerable disorder, not to mention confusing distraction from the more orderly internal deconstruction of the PC MC paradigm which is bound to happen as long as Muslims keep putting their feet in their mouths more and more in the coming decades. I hope, and have a hunch, nevertheless, that such a sufficient number will not coalesce.

As for what this has to do with allowing or not allowing comments, I remain baffled. I certainly would allow comments -- quasi-apocalyptically disagreeing with me or otherwise -- on any posts I posted on this subject anywhere and couldn't imagine they would have an effect (other than somewhat helpful to the free stew of ideas) on the larger problem and the ongoing evolution of its management.

I don't care what you take seriously quite frankly, you are of no consequence to me and I certainly don't dance to your tune. I have seen dozens of comments removed over time, some from commentators that I have never seen any rule breaking from and if the hosts wish to deny it then so be it. It remains a fact.

But what fantasy it is to claim *few other blogs that promote and encourage such a consistently high level of free speech* in a thread about such a thing to be ended totally in future posts!

I think you have the *chip on your shoulder* as you clearly think you are an arbiter of what is *legitimate discussion* and *civilised* debate.So maybe you shouldn't unpack your *pre-packed psychological baggage* if that gets your goat.

Hesperado: I disagree strenuously with Fjordman: I don't believe "we are about to enter a prolonged period of great turbulence, financially, politically and ethnically, possibly involving wars in several Western countries as a direct consequence of non-European mass immigration."

Which one of you two would we rather have end up being wrong about this?

While you may disparage the fact that "cultivation of this quasi-apocalyptic alienation by a sufficient number of Westerners could, however, contribute to considerable disorder", try to consider how devastating it could be for those in the West if such a cataclysm came to pass and no one was braced for the prospect of it.

Hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

You, Hesperado, continue to cite Islam as a primary threat. You deride those who downplay the Muslim peril. Even so, you yourself downplay the possibility that Islamic hijra could spark violent turmoil in the West, despite the fact that it already has.

He "needs" to hear these views, because Fjordman has a following and therefore has influence. His I.Q.-based tribalist ideas are DANGEROUS Dymphna. Eugenics and racial genocide DID happen. Have you forgotten WW2? I'm not calling Fjordman a Nazi, but his ideas on THIS topic would have found warm welcome in the Third Reich. Fjordman could be a great guy and yet still show as much cognitive dissonance as a guy with a COEXIST bumper sticker right next to an emblem celebrating Darwinism. He may mean well, but on THIS one he's wrong...and dangerously so.

Fjordie is certainly learned, but that does not make him Yoda. He is capable of being badly informed, and of making mistakes. Again, on an issue like THIS one, I think he NEEDS to hear opposing views. As a person of certain influence, his words matter.

I could care less if he hears it from me. But I doubt he has heard the opposing view that I have laid out (comments posted on Fjordman's "Explaining Cold Climate theory and the Evolution of high IQ").

It is my civilization too, Dymphna, and IQ-based tribalism is a worrisome idea, to put it mildly. If Fjordman doesn't like it, thats too bad. He should at least hear it, for EVERYONE'S sake.

Just because the guy has picked up a book or two, it does not mean that we should treat his posts like sacred crumbs from the heights of a Nordic Mt. Olympus. Hell, if he's worth his salt he'd actually agree with me.

Fjordman, Baron and Dymphna:Due to the discussion of past articles sometimes going 'tit's up' or sideways, I agree that this is a very sound decision. No one is forcing any of the commenters to return here at gunpoint. It is still a free country(sort of) and you can pick and chose what sites you want to be part of, or not.

I seriously doubt that this will hurt the flavor and fervor of discussions that can be found here at G of V. This site constantly has some of the most passionate, well back up, researched comments found at ANY site.

Of course in a perfect world all the posts would be an open battlefield for discussions and opinions. That said, sometimes the damper needs to closed on a roaring fire so that the flue does not ignite, and the entire dwelling then gets burned down.

We are already in a period of turbulence and conflict and we all know this is only going to get much, much worse. I am sure this was not a decision made in haste or without deep, serious discussions of the parties involved.

I have tread here long enough, gotten to know Baron and Dymphna to a certain level of that they are folks of the highest quality and caliber in these rare areas of today's, world: TRUST, HONESTY, MORALS and ETHICS. I have no reason to doubt Fjordman on any level after reading his posts that he kindly shares with us.

Fjordman, Here is an offer for you. I would love to have as a contributor on my site along with G of V. I know I am free to cross post and do share a lot from G of V. Not trying to steal you or anything like that. Just really appreciate your work, topics and dedication.

As long as you continue to speak the truth as you see it, I have no problem with being a spectator. I just request you give the "evil ones", whoever they may be, both barrels in the guts. No pity. No mercy.

Robert Marchenoir: Yes, anything related to Jews does tend to unleash trouble, but no, that is by no means the only issue I’m thinking of. I know from personal experience that there are at least a dozen subjects that people find very hard to discuss in an intelligent manner. cumpa_29 here was kind enough to demonstrate a couple of the others, namely genes and IQ.

No, I am not in favor of IQ-based tribalism. I’m merely saying that genetic tribalism is what comes natural to human beings. That’s a simple factual statement. If you really want to know, I am not in favor of IQ-based tribalism because that might imply that it’s OK for my nation to be displaced by high-IQ peoples such as the Chinese. I am not interested in that at all. I don’t want to be displaced by anybody, regardless of their IQ. IQ is a side issue. A rather important side issue, yes, which is why I write about it sometimes, but a side issue nonetheless.

PatriotUSA: Thank you for kind words. To be perfectly honest, right now I am already posting at several different websites, as you probably know. I’m not sure if I want to expand this even further, but I’ll think about it and I appreciate the offer.

I don't need to waste any of my time on you. Again, like I said, I have seen dozens of comments deleted here over time and from commentators that previously broke no rules. If the hosts want to deny it, so be it, it still remains a fact.

Oh, and I clearly framed the context of where free speech will stop herein, so that is a real strawman.

But all in all, that's the bit that cracks me up with your sort of suppressor: You always have to try and bring dissent to some *psychological* issue and make stuff up, whilst always, but always citing *freedom* too.

You just cant handle disagreement, not even slightly, not even on the suppression of free speech and open debate. You really do think I have to think your way or I must be mental (and leave.)

It's very good of the Baron, Dymphna and Fjordman himself, to respond personally to my comment.

In short, I don't like it. But I'll take it.

Debate can only be constructive if there is an accepted level of good faith from all the participants, and if it is the case that the absence of good faith on some topics makes the task of moderation vast and unproductive, I can see the logic; even if in my heart of hearts I wish that it wasn't so.

God Bless you Fjordman, keep writing, a majority in the European mainland and the UK are not yet awake to the dangers. I think more as a percentage are perhaps awake in the U.S. but we are yet too comfortable to rise up. Another event at the level of the attack on NYC may tip the balance but we here pray that the next election will put us on the right course before the demagogues turn dictators.

Fjordman, your posts on IQ state quite clearly that you believe the West is in danger of being overwhelmed by less intelligent nations. While this might be theoretically true, your basis for believing so was quite shaky (check out the "Cold Climate Theory and the Evolution of high IQ's").

The idea of racial totem poles based on IQ's, and your aversion to being swamped by lesser intelligent beings, could have consequences, my friend. Not only is your position on weak ground, but people HAVE been killed for this sort of thing. People DO listen to you, and I see no danger in hearing alternate points of view on something which can be a barrel of TNT waiting to blow.

Does the idea of lesser and greater nations based on IQ NOT have potentially dangerous side-effects? The data could be misleading, and the idea in general could be based on faulty premeses. After eugenics and racial holocausts, I hardly see opposing views as so scandalous, or "unintelligent" as Fjordman so kindly put it.

What Robert Marchenoir said.There is an important distinction to be made between process and content.

You appear to have what the Baron now calls "the Nazi heeber jeebers" -- as proved by your referencing Fjordman with a gratuitous German-language salutation.

Let's take all the contents of Hitler's life and make them verboten, hmm? That'll keep us safe.

Your comments appear almost frantic. As though, if you keep repeating yourself ever more urgently, it will change things.

When that doesn't work, you denigrate Fjordman's accomplishments and then assign to him ideas that he's never proposed. You're simply making it clearer that the decision announced in this post was the right one.

"...Islamic hijra could spark violent turmoil in the West, despite the fact that it already has."

Not the kind of turmoil Fjordman is referring to. (Serbia does not count in this regard, because of its special historical circumstances.) The only turmoil (coming to close to being worthy of the implication with which Fjordman is using that word) Islamic immigration has resulted in thus far is Muslims doing violence in various flavors. And as yet, they haven't managed to do what they intend to do -- sufficiently destabilize our societies in preparation for more concerted, more military assaults (the latter of which, at any rate, they still remain incapable of, and will remain so for the foreseeable future).

@Robert.No, recognizing that the mentally ill have lower IQ's does not lead to Eugenics. And no, the belief that races are intellectually unequal does not lead to mass murder.

But we ARE on the verge of some kind of cataclysm. Hitler and the Nazis came to power largely because of the Great Depression. I find Fjordman's ideas so unsettling more because of its timing than its content. There is a LOT of angry, murderous blame about to go around, and the supposed scientific bases for lower racial IQ's sure as heck wont help things at all. This is what upsets me. My message was simply: "Be careful! At least think it through!" For that I was told that Fjordman was so learned as to be above criticism, and later was called "unintelligent" by Fjordman himself.

If you read Fjordman's tautological essay on "Cold Climate theory and the Evolution of IQ", you'll see why I said he was on shaky ground. It was neither insulting nor unintelligent (except perhaps for those who don't like criticism).

This is an important issue ESPECIALLY for its timing. The IQ thing is not some pointless side show. People's lives could be at stake.

Think it THROUGH for the love of God. There is nothing "unintelligent" about THAT.

Pierre_Picaud: Debate can only be constructive if there is an accepted level of good faith from all the participants, and if it is the case that the absence of good faith on some topics makes the task of moderation vast and unproductive, I can see the logic; even if in my heart of hearts I wish that it wasn't so.

eileen.ocnnr: Fair enough. I think the owner of a blog or website should be entitled to run their blog/site in whatever way they choose. Open comments, moderated comments, closed comments -- it's all good!

I only criticized Fjordman on THIS particular issue. I also mentioned that I appreciated his efforts in general.

My german salutation was meant as a wake-up-call. I always said that he could be a good guy, just deep in denial. I can understand why you thought it was over the top.

And like I told Robert, I do not think the lower IQs of the mentally defective leads to eugenics. Nor do I think that the belief in unequal racial IQ's automatically leads to genocide. Its the timing that unsettles me more than anything.

Fjordman does have a following, and I do not think it scandalous to criticize him or caution him. Considering the historical record, he is not so learned as to be above that. Not on this issue.

By the way, I even said that his position could be theoretically possible. A far cry from someone with irrational heebee jeebees.

You sidestepped my question, Dymphna. My question was NOT whether fears of Fjordman's position could be overblown, but whether it has a tendency to be taken badly by those who are the worst of our nature.....especially when the world falls apart.

I appreciate Fjordman's essays (in general), and find it refreshing to be able to read them on your blog. I also deeply appreciate the blog itself. I'm a huge fan.

My objections were not insulting (except for the german salutation). My rationale on Fjordman's post was not unintelligent, and I find Fjordman's insinuation otherwise to be more than a tad condescending. The world IS about to fall apart, and I happen to have a spanish surname. Excuse me if I'm a little unsettled by the notion in question, considering its timing.

I've said what I've had to say, and enjoy your blog immensely.Fjordman is not above criticism.

cumpa_29: I find Fjordman's ideas so unsettling more because of its timing than its content.

Here's a suggestion; why not write a rebuttal piece and request that the Baron post it at Gov? The worst that can happen is your submission gets turned down even while you have honed your arguments to your own advantage. Let's face it, if the Baron has so graciously accepted numerous pieces of my own work, there's not much that's out of bounds.

In all honesty, I tend to agree with Fjordman, although I would modify such agreement with how so many Third World immigrants also tend to import their own backwards cultures with them which often include endemic, systemic or institutionalized corruption in the form of bribery, graft, criminality, gangsterism, oligarchy, elitism, unethical practices, illiteracy, innumneracy, unsafe sexual conduct, simple bigotry or racism, misogyny, prejudice, accepted spousal abuse - child abuse - sexual abuse, so-called "honor killing", rape, gang rape, pederasty, child marriage, consanguineous marriage, polygamy, FGM (Female Genital Mutilation), unhygienic practices, animal cruelty, smuggling, slavery, profound and destructive superstition, two-tier or multi-tier social structures, human sacrifice plus various unsustainable practices and a host of other dubious or outright offensive behaviors.

(Is there a pattern emerging here?)

Yes, more than a few of the above items mentioned can be found here already, but the rate at which they are being imported or accelerated by admittedly lower IQ immigrants poses serious complications to technologically advanced Western cultures.

If you can coherently address the above laundry list of counterproductive behaviors along with explaining why Western nations should admit or tolerate the infection of their cultures with such commonplace and deleterious Third World practices, I would welcome your observations.

If you can't; would you please do the honorable thing and admit it here right now?

OK. I’ll explain the whole unpleasant mess in its entirety, so that maybe — just maybe — you might begin to understand why your concerns about Fjordman’s writings are so misplaced.

Fjordman has greatly disappointed portions of the White Nationalist movement. These are people who had respected him and had had great expectations for him. He has particularly disappointed those who are preoccupied with what they call the “Jewish Question” (JQ for short).

They reproached him for his failure to proceed to what they considered to be the logical conclusion of his work, which would have placed great emphasis on — surprise! — the nefarious role played by the Jews.

They believe that his failure to do so has done their own movement damage. They consider the overall effect of Fjordman’s betrayal to be harmful to the interests of the White Race.

This is why they have taken against him. Some of them have even floated the theory that Fjordman himself is a Jew, and in the pay of the Zionists.

You are afraid that Fjordman will become a dangerous simulacrum of Hitler, and yet the Jew-obsessed White Nationalists believe Fjordman is at best a crypto-Jew, and at worst a paid Zionist agent!

Now do you see how absurd your preoccupation is, given the above circumstances?

@ZensterWhoa! What was THAT?First off, just because I think Fjordman's position to be on shaky ground, it does not mean that I'm for uncontrolled immigration from third world countries. If developed nations seek immigrants they should do so with their brains intact. I'm for legal immigration, and for the rights of nations to discriminate based not practical needs. Educated folk from other countries can be a good thing, provided things like religion and culture are taken into consideration. I wouldn't allow ANY immigration from Muslim countries. After that, the more radically different the cultures immigrants come from, the more caution should be shown in their acceptance in significant numbers. But in general, I think immigration a good thing. It shows our values (provided we do it with brains), and checks fascist impulses.

I would remind you that the immigrants of the 19th century were considered trashy in their day. No doubt people had long, exhaustive lists of why they didn't like them. Back when our nation was actually made of something, it was done well. Now the MC PC crowd is in charge. I can understand the deep anger out there with regards to immigration which threatens to destroy whole nations. But I would also remind you that it was more the fault of the host nations, than the immigrants themselves. It was Europe who was dumb enough to let in the ummah, remember?

I posted my criticism of Fjordman on his tautological "Climate Theory and the Evolution of IQ". Take a look if you want. I could add a few things if you wish.

I find NOTHING wrong with saying that on this issue, since it DOES have potential side-effects, reasonable objections should be raised. I didn't particularly like being told that Fjordman is too learned for criticism, and I didn't like being called unintelligent simply because someone didn't like my objections. Baron and Dymphna have a right to do what they want with their blog. Fjordman has a right to deny comments if he wants to. But my reasons for keeping comments open on this issue were valid. Ideas have consequences.

No. I am not afraid that Fjordman might become Hitler. I always said he could be a swell guy afflicted by cognitive dissonance.

I inferred exactly what you wrote about the whole J thing. Doesn't surprise me.

And yes, I am well aware that Fjordman has nothing to do with those who sleep with the Protocols of Zion under their pillow.

Yet his position on IQ is something racists agree with. I know that not all people who believe in racial intellectual inequality are racists (and I don't accuse Fjordman of being one), its the position itself that I have a problem with.

Fjordman could be right, but I don't think so. And my reasons for disagreeing with him were in the end not based on morality. I only thought that my objection to this particular point should be expressed --though I heartily agree that it is within your right to do what you want with this blog, and Fjordman's right to block comments on his own posts.

I meant no offense, but my objection was valid. You guys can do what you wish. I'll still enjoy your blog.

Being agreed with by racists and Nazis on some positions is an occupational hazard for me, Fjordman, and all the other Counterjihad writers. It goes with the turf.

For example, they agree with me on mass immigration. Should I therefore reconsider my position?

This is absurd. You don’t really believe that these arguments have merit, do you?

Someone else (might have been Dymphna) advised you to quit digging. I second that motion.

Yet his position on IQ is something racists agree with.

But what is his “position on IQ”? Define it. Characterize it, so we can see what you mean.

Is his position that there are measurable differences in IQ scores between the races, and that these differences are at least partially genetic?

If so, his position is borne out by the evidence. Scientists don’t like to talk about it, but such differences exist. They’ve been desperate to disprove the results — population genetics, like everything else, is ruled by PC — but no luck. They’ve been trying for forty years to find countervailing evidence, and have failed.

Unlike “global warming”, the science on race and IQ is settled. There are gene-based differences.

Now, that doesn’t bother me. I don’t see why it has to affect public policy. If we really were a color-blind society, no one would care — smarter people could be educated to their capacity and employed accordingly, and so could less intelligent people.

I acknowledge that the topic is a hot-button issue. But it shouldn’t be. If we lived in a sane world, it wouldn’t be. And none of this insanity is because of what Fjordman says.

Is it really that you just think he shouldn’t talk about it?

Would it be better if he just kept quiet, so that the New Hitler couldn’t use the information for his evil purposes?

C’mon, man, spit it out — is that what you really want?

Don’t be afraid to speak up. Do you just want Fjordman to stop telling the truth, because you think the truth could do harm if it fell into the wrong hands?

Because if that’s not your point, I can’t for the life of me see what is.

Sure racists agree with your position on immigration, but if your position is based on culture, religion, the capacity of nations to absorb immigrants at certain numbers, etc, then you are in clear disagreement with them. Therefore, you have every right to not be bothered by their agreement.

I wrote my position on Fjordman's essay on his post. But if you would like a small refresher, here it goes:

1) IQ tests can be iffy. They can just as easily measure different levels of acculturation, collective insecurities, and general social impoverishment just as anything else. Perhaps the people accustomed to taking tests tend to be better at IQ. Granted, the PC elite would LOVE to find data to show to the world that this is the case. But that's hard to measure, isn't it? Even if you don't think this is the case, it certainly isn't an abomination to merely float the idea.

2) Fjordman's post was in some ways largely based on Darwinism. There are good reasons to think that Darwinism is merely around because of its secularizing tendencies (and I used to believe in it, by the way). The genetic code is the most information-rich language in the known universe. Every time we see information, we infer the presence of a mind. Darwinists tell us that bio-genesis is bogus EXCEPT for the origin of the first cell. Why is that, exactly? That Francis Collins would speculate that the first life was "seeded" onto earth by aliens doesn't exactly help the cause. There are MASSIVE problems with the fossil record, such as the Cambrian explosion. Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould even went so far as to say evolution conveniently speeds up or slows down in order to fit the theory into the data (punctuated equilibrium). Bats, Sonar and all, don't show up gradually. They pop up out of the blue. Bacteria that have grown resistant to medicine have been shown to lose out when in competition with its ancestors when medicine is removed. Apparently, they lose the ability to breed as quickly. In other words, no net evolution. People have noticed that species change over time BEFORE Darwin. What Darwin added was the idea that natural selection builds on these changes to produce entirely new species. This has NEVER been proven. Inferring Design is LICIT. Its used in cryptology, archeology, the scientists at SETI (search for ET life), and forensic pathologists use it when declaring a death to be intentional. Darwinists go APE over this, and use call kinds of red-herrings to deceive the public. Their favorite one is the cry of "creationism!", when creationism properly understood means forcing the data into a literal meaning of Genesis. What they don't like are the implications. Many cosmologists hate the Big Bang for the same reasons.On top of it all, Michael Behe has given a great argument as to WHY the intricate machinery of living cells cannot have arisen in a step-by-step process. The bacterial flagellum, for example, is a motor modern engineers can only drool at. Behe's argument is that these sorts of systems have to be in place at ONCE. They simply don't work until all the necessary parts are in place. Thats a PROBLEM for evolution. How can a flagellum be built in a step-by-step process, when the whole thing isn't functional until all the parts are there? A quarter of a flagellum, after all, is a PROBLEM, not a selective advantage. In the merciless world of natural selection, chances are these cells would die out. Non-functional flagellar parts constitute pointless baggage for an organism. And to believe that the genetic info needed to produce these systems just 'popped' into existence without the involvement of a mind, is sheer lunacy.

You are quick to point out possible PC influence on IQ tests, but the same could be true of Darwinism. It was true of Global Warming, that's for sure.

Lastly, every genetic code humans have messed with (and this includes the countless generations of bacteria), seem to have a LIMIT to what they can produce. We have stretched the limits of the canine code, but what we always get are dogs. It also seems that the closer we get for the limits of all these codes, the sicker the resulting offspring becomes.

This is important because it puts REAL LIMITS on the possible variations of the human species.

3) Even WITHIN the intelligent design paradigm (where the human code will only be just that), it is STILL possible for Fjordman and others to be right: namely that there are smarter and dumber breeds of people out there. This is true for dogs, why not people?

My objection to this was that unlike dogs, humans were never conditioned in FAVOR of stupidity. Domesticated dogs don't have to survive in the wild. Humans did, for eons. This means that we can inadvertantly breed for dumb dogs. Natural selection never operated for dumb people in the wild.

4) Fjordman posits cold weather as the driving force for intelligence. But his position is weak as all hades, because the most unforgiving environment is not the weather, but PEOPLE. Its the social environment that is the most demanding. The weather isn't constantly trying to outwit you to take your life, wife, and cash.

5) The social environment, and the human code for that matter, operate REGARDLESS of location. And since nature could never breed for dumb people, my position is valid: human intelligence is probably a well-functioning average across all races. IQ tests indicating otherwise could be misleading. Different levels of acculturation, the stress of social impoverishment, insecure collective consciousness', and educational levels could all play a role. It is certainly a possibility at least. I think that human intelligence is probably a bit like sense of humor and musical sensibilities --affected by culture, but more or less evenly distributed.

6)Fjordman's point that people of colder climes are smarter, therefore it must be because they are from the north, is more than a tad tautological.

7) Outside of bogus evolution, and questionable IQ tests, he wrote that in general, it has been the northerners who dominate the south. This again, is presented as further evidence of his position. He cites the Mongolians invading China, and various invasions of India. Rome invading Gaul and Britain could be an exception to the rule. My point was that the people in Vietnam didn't rely on the horse like Mongolians did. To conquer China, you NEED horses, and lots of them. Perhaps Hindus never crossed the Hindu Kush (Killer of Hindus) as successful invasion forces, because the physical trauma of moving from jungle conditions to the frigid mountains is more intense than coming from the opposite side. This would have massive implications for reinforcements and supply lines. Granted, persians moving from the Kush to India would also be a pain, but their bodies are accustomed to something in between, and their time in the Kush is limited. India, due to its relative geographic isolation, was cut off from certain important ideas. There are more potential factors than simply North/Smart, South/Stupid. Lastly, was it REALLY the high IQs of the Germans that cause the Fall of Rome, or its own internal collapse?

Here's a suggestion; why not write a rebuttal piece and request that the Baron post it at Gov? The worst that can happen is your submission gets turned down even while you have honed your arguments to your own advantage.

Since I'm quoting you once Zenster, I'll do it again:

Le bingo!

This is the way, ladies and gentlemen. If you have something that you really want to say with regards to a Fjordman essay, write your own response. Just imagine - no word limit, all the time in the world to reflect and research. I can't actually view this decision as an infringement on free speech. This just sorts those who blow their mouths of beating their pet issues (poor issues must be sick of their mallets).

While I'm not sure the Baron and Dymphna might publish such posts in full, I'm sure the ability to comment on the News Feed will provide you with quite adequate publicity for your response.

Certainly I know, Fjordman has said a few things that I'd like to build upon far more than I could in the comments section.

You're actually doing us all a favour, I reckon. Then again, I am a glass half-full guy.

Can one have both truth and censorship?This seems to be a growing trend,there are many issues that i would like to comment upon,but the barriers on these websites are increasing,and if as is happening with the political elite who control and narrow any debate so that people,either agree or shut up,then we too are infected by the same poison that is debilitating and oppressing our societies,either a man has an absolute right to say what he pleases or he does not,there is no qualification.

I have written a series of posts at my blog which gives support to this decision: for example this one.

It's not only blog posts explicitly about Jews that generate noise instead of discussion. Any controversial topic (IQ, genes, etc.) will be turned into a discussion about the Jewish question by those obsessed about it. The end result being: 1) noise, and 2) everybody forgot the original topic. In such cases open comment threads are clearly counter-productive.

This happened recently in the comments to Fjordman's article about the Proposition Nation. I and Fjordman reacted the same way to this. This was the last drop. We have both had enough of this idiocy.

Thank you for understanding the value of the principle of discrimination -- as opposed to the egalitarian idea of freedom of expression for all. Many people forget that it's by over-stressing egalitarianism while forgetting the positive value of discrimination that our civilization plunged in the first place.

It's like I've said about the right to vote. No one should be a priori excluded from it, but at the same time no one should get it for free. An effort must be made to deserve it.

The same applies here. A closed comments section does not mean that people cannot comment on a Fjordman article. It just means that the hurdle for entering the debate gets higher. People will have to make an effort -- by writing an article at their own blog (or convince someone else to post it) -- in order to deserve entering the debate. Thus the problem of the immature noise is effectively solved.

cumpa_29: Your rather confused comments here only prove my point, and demonstrate that closing comments sometimes is the right thing to do. If anything, they show that genetic differences in ability need to be talked about more, not less. Life is inequality. As long as we are alive, some individuals will be smarter than others, run faster, be stronger etc. The only way to eliminate inequality is by literally killing everybody, which goes a long way in explaining why Marxist regimes based on alleged equality have proven to be so murderous. We are equal only in death. Egalitarianism is essentially doctrinal hostility to life itself.

Hesperado: But that doesn't then mean that they aren't wrong, in one way or another, in the way they choose to run it.

Basta ya!

Neither does it mean that they are not right! Prove it. I dare you!

a) I never said that a blog owner's choice to limit freedom of speech on his own blog is right or wrong; my point is that eileen's point was strongly implying a defense of the rightness merely on the basis of ownership -- a variation on "might makes right", which is an elementary logical flaw.

b) Whether it is right or wrong for a blog owner to limit the freedom of speech of others on his blog is a matter of opinion, not a matter of hard science that can be proven or disproven. I happen to be of the opinion that favors cultivating the utmost freedom of speech on discussion forums, and only limiting obvious problems such as spam, repetitions, posts of thousands of words, and incessant vulgarity. I have seen discussion forums where virtually anything and everything is allowed, and nobody gets hurt. It's just a forum of printed words. Indeed, the Internet provides a unique medium for untrammeled participation, because unlike a hard copy newspaper or magazine, or unlike a live and/or televised or radio forum, it doesn't take up any real space of paper or room space or speaking time: it's all virtual and easily bypassed and navigated around (we're not counting hacking and spam, obviously).

If grown-ups don't have the ability to detect within a few opening words a post they know will be a waste of time, and then bypass such comments, then perhaps they shouldn't be operating the heavy machinery of a computer in the first place.

The huge amount of confused thinking, especially in commenters and their presuppositions about reality, is amazing and mind-boggling. To think that Europe can be saved without a fixed standard of truth by a return to some ancient paganism is suicide. There is only one source for a fixed standard of truth that will give greater confidence than the Mohammedans enjoy (which is really just filling a void of the will to live on the part of humanists), that will give more strength, and a will to live. It is explained by RJ Rushdoony at www.pocketcollege.com. He has there laid out the foundation for the next stage of Christian civilization. Nothing else has a chance of competing with that body of work. Neopagans notwithstanding.

I understand both points of view: those who plan to curtail comments and those who want to post comments.

I appreciate the civility of this blog and the immense amount of time that reading and policing large comment threads takes the Baron and Dymphna. It must be very difficult for the blog owners to be forced to read and monitor multiple comments with which you disagree - or that even personally insult you.

That said, my initial gut reaction - one that remains with me after several days of consideration - is that it seems cowardly of Fjordman to deny the ability of readers to comment on controversial posts.

Clearly, people are interested in participating in a discussion forum for controversial issues that are taboo in the "polite" conversation of society at large.

If threads are derailed, oh well, that derailment is the issue that those people want to discuss at that time. Anyone can comment again to redirect the thread. Anyone can skip comments that are offensive to their sensibilities. Well, anyone except the blog owners who rightfully rebel at "wasting" time deleting uncivil comments instead of doing more productive things, in their estimation, and it's their life. :)

One does get the impression that Fjordman would be happier with 20 on-topic comments - rather than those same 20 plus another 150 off-topic comments, but maybe those 150 off-topic comments are valuable to the people who participate in that thread and the people who lurk in the shadows.

It is obvious that Fjordman is very intelligent, BUT I would posit that the very people who seek to curtail criticism are the people who need it the most. Fjordman, criticism keeps you honest....

Lack of criticism seems priestly - as if the high priest pronounces that which the masses must accept without comment.

First Plato - and then Mohammed said, "Silence is consent." Would you have us all consent without comment? Mohammed would be proud.

I got cut off for a good while. Let me try to restate my objection in a nutshell and avoid the laudry list of problems with evolution, which is only secondary to my main objection.

Fjordman. Sure there are physical variations in human beings. There are physical variations in dogs too. Unlike dogs, however, people had to survive in the wild. Whereas we can inadvertantly breed for stupidity with dogs, humans could have never been bred for stupidity in the wild. Natural Selection NEVER operates in favor of stupidity. Quite the opposite.

Your position boils down to largely believing that cold environments are the most-demanding, therefore it selecets for smarter people.

My MAIN objection to your point (to keep it as pithy as possible), is that the most demanding environment is NOT the cold, but other people. The social environment is merciless, and is constantly selecting for as much wit as possible. This environment occurs REGARDLESS of location.

So though the physical environment may have been selecting for different physical abilities, the social environment was constantly selecting for intelligence. The latter is definitely stronger than the former, because people are more dangerous than the weather. So there is no reason to believe that people would develop different physical characteristics, if it meant that it would get them killed. Humans may be physically different, but it represents the range of possible differences within the paramater of being as smart as possible.

Was that intelligent enough for you?

The idea that people from the north are smarter, therefore it must be because they are from the north, is a tautology, Fjordman.

You may not agree with my position, but there is nothing wrong with it being heard. There is no way you can compare unhinged J-bashing, with what I just wrote. No way.

"...the immense amount of time that reading and policing large comment threads takes the Baron and Dymphna."

The immensity of that amount of time could be significantly minimized by simply allowing whole categories of currently impermissible content.

Or: surely, there must exist (or if it doesn't yet exist, could be developed by software writers) a way to automatically move any post that has designated 4-letter words to a separate forum, where the commenter still has a say, but in a "red light district" of the blog, so to speak. One could call it "Gates of Vienna Blue" or something. That would save Baron and Dymphna time: instead of actually reading and looking for 4-letter words, the program would automatically re-route them.

However, when it comes to intellectual content, and when the form of that content is mature and intelligent -- no matter how politically or philosophically repellent the positions it may defend are deemed to be -- it is simply outrageous to try to defend excluding that from a blog purported to be about defending and extolling the virtues of Western civilization.

cumpa_29: Your previous comments on this thread regarding this subject were clearly non-rational. You ranted about “Nazis” instead of relating to the documented fact that different nations have different levels of intelligence. Very roughly speaking, the further north you get, the higher IQ people have. If you also adjust for population density, the correlation between mean IQ and the natural environment becomes very strong. That’s a fact. If you can come up with an alternative theory for why northern peoples have high IQs I’m all ears. Let’s hear it. In the case of Ashkenazi Jews, the higher IQ was probably caused by the social environment.

Egghead: You can promote and debate whatever subjects you want at your own blog. Nobody is stopping you from doing so, certainly not me.

Egghead: Lack of criticism seems priestly - as if the high priest pronounces that which the masses must accept without comment.

Good point Egghead and I will cheerfully admit that this sticks in my craw a bit, too. However, as others including myself have noted, some issues badly need airing so that the educational process can be seeded.

Derailing comments and other noise can inhibit that educational process. A major goal of Counterjihad sites such as this one is reaching undecided individuals or people whose opinions are still malleable enough to be persuaded with reason and logic.

If that outreach is facilitated by closed comments, then so be it. As has often been noted here and elsewhere:

cumpa_29: OK, I’ll answer the question. The urban social environment we have created for ourselves, which includes technological innovations such as electric heating and air-condition, is probably more important than the natural one today. Throughout most of human existence, however, the natural environment was most important. Therefore, we check for the latter first. Climate and the natural environment, when adjusted for population size and by extension the total number of potential mutations, can account for the bulk of the observed IQ differences between different nations that we see today, with the probable exception of Ashkenazi Jews.

That doesn’t mean that climate was the only or only possible factor affecting human intelligence in prehistoric times; it is likely that there were other forces involved in the evolution of the first humanoids within Africa itself, for instance. However, based on empirical evidence it looks clear that among those Homo sapiens sapiens who left Africa, those who settled in a climate with cold winters evolved a higher intelligence than those who stayed within a tropical environment most of the time. Exactly why that is could be debated.

Evolution is often a combination of push-and-pull factors. It could for instance be the case that heat stress on the brain was less important in a cool climate, which made possible certain evolutionary changes in the structure and size of the human brain itself that would have had a negative short-term impact in a warmer climate. I personally suspect that there was also a strong pull factor involved in this, in that those who lived in areas with cold winters had to evolve a new level of abstract thinking and ability to plan ahead in order to survive the winter.

Now you can answer my questions: Do you dispute the fact that northern Europeans on average have a higher IQ than Africans, or that East Asians have a higher IQ than Middle Easterners? If not, do you have an alternative theory for why people living in cooler regions seem to have higher intelligence than those living in warmer ones? Do you also think that it is legitimate to debate IQ differences between ethnic groups? Yes or no?

@Fjordman.Thank you.So you think that the physical environment was more demanding of intelligentce than the social one, just not in the recent past.

I would remind you that mother nature, though brutal, isn't constantly trying to outwit you in order to take your women and resources.

Your position is weak (putting it mildly), but I sure as heck wouldn't consider it so terribly unintelligent as to not be worthy of discussion.

Your other arguments are circular. They start with higher northern IQ's, and give "just so" stories in order to explain them. These explanations are speculative, Fjordman. But again, I wouldn't consider them so unworthy as to be verboten.

Lastly, I accept that IQ tests as they currently stand suggest that northerners have higher IQs. But data can be misleading sometimes. Physics used to be Newtonian Physics...and then the whole picture changed when Einstein (and others) came along. Again, pointing out that certain data can be wrong or superficial, is not an abomination unworthy of discussion. The evidence for Newtonian physics was/is on MUCH more solid ground than the conclusions people make from IQ data. There's no comparing.

Lastly, my observation that your view on the intellectual inequality of races constitutes racism was NOT a reflection on you as a person (and yes, differences in height is also technically a racist notion). Christopher Hitchens espouses atheism, and I have a lot of respect for the man. Nevertheless, he has never shunned debate with people that say atheism can lead to horrible behavior among scumbag people. Just as you do not like the idea that racial intellectual inequality is a racist notion that could legitimize bad behavior, so too does Hitchens not like the idea that atheism's inherent amorality is ALSO a notion that could legitimize bad behavior. And yet he still debates people. People mention commy atrocities to Hitchens all the time as evidence of what could happen. They are NOT calling Hitchens a mass-murdering commie. I mentioned Nazi Germany to you in the same manner. I was trying to make a point, not offend anyone.

And if my sarcastic tone offended anyone, I apologize. On your part, I would remind you that you dismissed my objections as "unintelligent" and "confusing". SO much so as to be equivalent to rabid J-bsshing.

Anyway. I'm glad you answered my question. Was it so terrible as to not have been worthy of a simple post on one of your essays?

Fjordman: If not, do you have an alternative theory for why people living in cooler regions seem to have higher intelligence than those living in warmer ones?

Living in a cold climate clearly posed far more challenges which, in turn, demanded enhanced problem solving skills. A prime example is cheese-making.

High moisture spring seasons provided lush pasturage but ordinary liquid milk could not be kept from spoiling. Converting the seasonal harvest of milk into cheese preserved that source of protein for later consumption during winter when such nourishing food would be at a premium.

As a corollary to this, with a several thousand year head start, why didn't Africa become the enduring pinnacle of modern civilization? This is a nagging question and it suggests some very uncomfortable answers.

One explanation is that the equatorial environment was so abundant in food ― you literally could just pick it off of the trees ― that it did not encourage innovative thinking in ways which cold-climate survival did.

cumpa_29: … the most demanding environment is NOT the cold, but other people. The social environment is merciless, and is constantly selecting for as much wit as possible. This environment occurs REGARDLESS of location.

Yet, as Fjordman correctly observed, the social environment's now-pivotal formative role is a much more recent factor than the far more historical influences of natural environment.

In fact, so recent is the social environment's emergence as an influential factor that it seems to be an unlikely explanation for the far earlier divergence in IQ per geographical location.

@ZensterI find your reasons speculative and circular, just like Fjordman's. However, you are entitled to voice them. Your recent comments are nowhere NEAR on the same level as rabid j-bashing.

My whole point throughout this thread was to state and then show that certain comments related to IQ are at least worthy of being mentioned. Fjordman is not so smart and learned as to be above a comment or two, especially when they bear no similarity to j-bashing. I readily admit that my sarcastic tone did not help matters at all.

Thank you Barn and Dymphna for letting me express myself. I will continue to enjoy your blog, if watching an iceburg approach the ship constitutes "enjoyment".

cumpa_29, if as you say, the social environment is such a powerful driver of intelligence, why hasn't Africa's rampant and highly resource-competitive tribal environment cause a concomitant increase in overall IQ?

cumpa_29: I find your reasons speculative and circular, just like Fjordman's.

So, then, feel free to suggest something more reasonable. Negative criticism is not very constructive. Your position would be far better served by a more careful explanation of what evidence there is to the contrary.

I will readily admit to not having a lot of expertise in this field. It is why I largely stay out of such discussions. However, I have yet to see much evidence which disqualifies the observations about IQ that I made in my earlier comments.

I see you really have gotten the hang of this censorship thing, and with such a fundamental grasp for its dishonest application.

I have this directed at me:

"Not even close and the fantasy world must be where you seem to want to live, so go right ahead and leave, and maybe take some of the other cry babies with you... Good riddance and I do hope the door hits you on the way out"

And merely point out that it is actually a factless ad hom attack , so of course you delete my comment, leave the real ad hom attack in place and then accuse me of this:

"No ad hominem attacks, pls."

And that says it all: If you don't agree with it is being said, you censor and lie.

@ZensterProbably because Africa is culturally and materially impoverished. Had you put an IQ test in front of an ancient german tribal chieftan, I doubt you would have gotten a stellar result.

Arguing over whether IQ tests are valid NOW is a bit of a digression. My point wasn't that I had to prove beyond doubt that IQ tests are invalid, but rather that reasonable arguments against their validity (and the conclusions drawn from them) are enough to merit being heard. My coments WERE reasonable enough for THAT.

The climate/intelligence correlation is intriguing to me since it bears on my personal experience.

Having grown up in the deep South, I recall vividly how sluggish the heat made everyone...not for nothing is the concept of a mandatory siesta so welcome in a sub-tropical climate.

Back then in the hot months of school, Algebra class right after lunch meant an 80% snooze rate. It wasn't volitional; the common complaint was "aw, it's too hot to think".

When my Irish relatives first moved to our heat the parish priest warned them survival meant they must always move slowly during daylight hours.

Arriving in New England, my IQ went up dramatically in the first encounter with a Canadian high pressure system...I could actually think! It was like walking on a cloud.

Universal air-conditioning in the South made its enormous economic growth possible.

I hope futher anthropological inquiry will give more informaton. At least the ones not burdened with p.c.m.c. fears...

...hey, come to think of it: what if all those Somalis being dumped in our Plains states to endure horrible cold and snow -- what if their kids show more smarts for the same reason? The cultural encombrances may prevent the any possible differntial from emerging, though.

cumpa_29: I still think your comments were for the most part emotional and incoherent. It is ridiculous to mention Nazis whenever the issue of genes comes up. Personally, I would say that culture is at least two thirds defined by genes, perhaps one third by ideas. Ideas matter, but the genetic potential needs to be there first. One could also say that we fight with ideas, not for ideas. The USA will probably die because it ignores the primary factor and focuses entirely on the secondary one. It became a great nation because it was founded by northern Europeans. As the founding stock declines, so will the USA. The US Constitution is a fine document, but in a country dominated by low-IQ peoples it will be practically worthless.

I was planning to write an essay or two on the subject of IQ and genes, anyway. If you read what I actually wrote, you would also see that I never said I would close comments on all of my posts. Some of them will still be left open. One interesting subject that cannot be explained by IQ is why Europeans outperformed East Asians, although the latter have slightly higher mean IQs than northern Europeans and substantially higher than southern Europeans.

As an example, Koreans have at least as high, perhaps slightly higher, average IQ than Germans, but the German cultural, scientific and technological contributions to the world are substantially greater than the Koreans ones. Not just slightly bigger, but much bigger. In Charles Murray’s Human Accomplishment, for example, only a single person from the entire Asian continent made it to the top twenty lists in any of the scientific disciplines, and he was from Japan. All of the other ones – 159 out of 160 – came from Europe or the Western world.

cumpa_29: Probably because Africa is culturally and materially impoverished.

Rubbish. Egyptian civilization represented one of the pinnacle achievements of mankind in its time. Africa was not "culturally and materially impoverished".

You tread dangerously close to the sort of mentality that blames criminal behavior on poverty.

What's more, you have yet to provide any conclusive or concrete evidence to support your own argument. And, no, I am not willing to accept you as any sort of authority whose word must be taken on face value, no matter how much you continue to act as though that is the case.

What is of such curiosity is not why Egyptian civilization arose in the first place. It is why Africans could not manage to capitalize upon that tremendous leap forward and continue building even more successful cultures.

One thing is sure, the more recent circumstances of Africans being "culturally and materially impoverished" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

A sharp eye should be cast upon primitive tribalism and, of course, the much later stagnating influence of Islam.

There is a reason that Africa continues to wallow in poverty, genocide, corruption and internal violence. Low IQ is merely a symptom of an overall malaise that goes to the very roots of sub-Saharan African culture.

The USA will probably die because it ignores the primary factor and focuses entirely on the secondary one. It became a great nation because it was founded by northern Europeans. As the founding stock declines, so will the USA. The US Constitution is a fine document, but in a country dominated by low-IQ peoples it will be practically worthless

Our fine Constitution began to be diluted by our European-stock rulilng classes. Then they began to actively trash it.

Those in power are mainly white males. Look at the list of the top 500 richest people in this country. Look at our legislators.

Obama is a front man for the Chicago machine. Were you the one who pointed that out recently? That's a white machine with a few token blacks in place.

Unfortunately, the electoral process is now owned by the Dems in every large city. So the fraud becomes ever more complete.

Our European stock is still running things, though they've changed the gears. We're stuck with a breakable socialist Ponzi scheme and we just have to stand by and watch it fall apart.

But your contention is correct: America will die and take a lot of others with us.

Egyptian civilization does not represent Africa. It was a Mesopotamian colonization of the northeast corner of the continent. Black activists and revisionists, particularly in American academe, have been trying to claim Egypt as some proud part of their heritage, which is balderdash, and shows how desperate they are to find some slender reed of substance to hang onto for their frail pride.

OK, I have an answer for cumpa_29, Fjordman, Zenster, et. al. to consider, and that answer is "IQ Flight."

ASSUMING - and remember, to assume makes an ass of U and me, ahem - anyway, assuming the verifiable (rather than anecdotal) present existence of high IQs in certain regions or countries - well, that assumption is a chicken versus egg question because no one can check the IQs of past peoples.

So, the true question is: Did people leave warmer climes and then become high IQ, OR did high IQ people leave warmer climes - perhaps for social reasons?

To cumpa_29, I followed your ideas which were intriguing and your rebuttals to Fjordman and Zenster which were well expressed. I myself believe that social pressures have always been greater than physical stressors.

If you look at the Bible as a work of literature, Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden - so that makes me wonder if that translates to the idea that the first people were starving?! But, then their son Cain (who is presented as the first human to be born) was a farmer who murdered his brother Abel out of jealousy - a crime of passion as it were.

I think that high IQ people have always tried to get away from low IQ people because 1) it was much easier to leave low IQ people than to live with them - particularly because 2) low IQ people tend to use extreme violence to equalize the resource disparity generated by their low IQ losing resources to high IQ people.

In every low IQ society, the high IQ people try to leave the low IQ people. It is human nature. Here in the United States, we call the phenomenon "white flight" whereas, when high IQ Africans immigrate to high IQ Europe, we would call it by its more accurate term which would be "IQ flight."

Because we can see the "IQ Flight" phenomenon in action in multiple cultures and places around the world TODAY, I believe that my theory is correct.

Unfortunately, given the chance, low IQ people are always chasing high IQ people - in order to get a hold of resources (generated by high IQ people) that low IQ people are unable to secure for themselves.

@Egghead.I like your use of the chicken and egg as an analogy. Inspired by your name, I assume?

I think the real chicken and egg question is this: do IQ's reflect smarter people, or does culture, wealth, collective confidence, and education produce the people who score well on IQ's?

With all do respect, eggy, I don't believe in a literal genesis, but that is tangental so it doesn't matter so much.

As far as smarter people "leaving" dumber ones (setting aside the idea of education producing "smart" people, rather than smart people getting educations), remember that it was not so easy in older days to just get up and go to other communities. Now we just hop in the car, put on the radio, and go for it.

It was different then. Communities were tighter knit, and less understanding of each other. Not to mention that there were many reasons to stay. If you are smarter than everyone else, dummies can work for you and you'd be rich. Why move to more competition?

Either way, I think the basic issues of this thread have been decided (though I am not the final judge).1) That essays which draw Protocol-of-Zion lunatics have every reason to be watched if not closed.2) That essays which touch on IQ should remain open as long as the comments are reasonable and expressed without vulgarity.

Anyway. Its nice to hear somenoe else's two cents.....on a thread that has probably won the gold medal for the long distance run.

cumpa_29: I've said what I had to say, and I think my posts and the responses to it speak for themselves.

Quite obviously, no they do not not. Otherwise I wouldn't be calling you on your own obvious lack of evidence.

Hesperado: Egyptian civilization does not represent Africa.

Which is why I carefully delineated in my last comment how "Low IQ is merely a symptom of an overall malaise that goes to the very roots of sub-Saharan African culture."

There were other substantial outcroppings of civilization in sub-Saharan Africa many centuries ago. There is also a great deal of question surrounding why that same early sub-Saharan Africa could not have taken more note of Egyptian culture and emulated or derived some greater benefit from that.

Stop nitpicking and please try to make some sort of substantial contribution in these discussions, Herperado. That is, unless nitpicking is all you are really good at.

Egghead: Did people leave warmer climes and then become high IQ, OR did high IQ people leave warmer climes - perhaps for social reasons?

Just as with the "chicken and egg" problem: the likelihood is that it was some sort of well-feathered reptile which hatched the first emergent prototypical chicken.

So would I have to guess that those who elected to migrate into colder climates zones had a predisposition towards greater intelligence, which later manifested as higher IQ in those northern climes that they migrated to.

An obvious indicator of this is that just such a migration alone required more developed problem solving skills in the form of planning, preparation, sacrifice (i.e., limiting immediate consumption of food and goods to accumulate travel-related supplies), plus a host of other more advanced thought patterns or behavioral traits.

There is some possibility that, once isolated from whatever degree of potential persecution or restraint occurring in their original location, these same migrating individuals were better able to create environmental conditions which then accelerated further growth in IQ.

Egyptian civilization represented one of the pinnacle achievements of mankind in its time. Africa was not "culturally and materially impoverished".

You are here directly linking Africa's cultural richness by using Egyptian civilization to substantiate it. If you didn't intend to say this, you sure chose a curious way of wording it in your opening sentence. Weaseling out now by distinguishing "Africa" from "Sub-Saharan Africa" is sophistry. "Africa" is either "Africa", or it's not. You can't have it both ways in order to try to say two different, mutually contradictory things. Egyptian civilization represents the cultural and material richness not of "Africa", but of a colonizing people from elsewhere. A lot like how the vast majority of the only good things about the entire Third World are from Western aliens who invaded and colonized and occupied -- and enriched.

@ZensterYou have your sense of certainty, I have mine. In the end, since this is Dymphna's & Co's website, it is up to them to arbritate between the sense of certainties of their respective trolls (that's a joke, by the way, and I include myself in it).

You are right. IQ is a SYMPTOM of Sub-Saharan Africa, not a cause. An ancient german chieftan scoring badly on an alien IQ test is a SYMPTOM of his condition, not a cause of it. When these same people were exposed to certain innovative and revolutionary ideas, they ended up scoring well, largely due to the fact that they came up with the test due to those ideas in the first place.

Hundreds of years from now, European descendants living in the Mad-Max post-apocalyptical wastelands of the frigid north (where no sub-humans dwell), would no doubt score poorly AGAIN. And all their leather chaps and crossbows will do little to comfort them.

@Zenster.Why do you assume that my comment on the length of this thread has anything to do with my self-esteem? I thought we were discussing something here, not engaging in a school-yard contest. The length of a thread usually has more to do with pig-headedness and ego than actual ability (as if ability is the issue here, rather than content).

Hesperado: Weaseling out now by distinguishing "Africa" from "Sub-Saharan Africa" is sophistry.

I am not "weaseling out" now. The qualifier was there in my original reference. There is no good reason why the numerous sub-Saharan Africans recruited into Egyptian culture could not have carried back some vestige of that greatness in order for it to be copied, emulated or improved upon.

a) J-hating freakazoids should be checkedb) reasonable and non-vulgar comments on IQ should be allowed.c) it is not up to me, or anyone else for that matter, to take someone else's refusal to accept the obvious, as a necessary condition for B. Unless, of course it is Dymphna & Co.'s decision to do so (not because they're right, but because that's what they've decided, as hosts of the blog itself)

cumpa_29: You are right. IQ is a SYMPTOM of Sub-Saharan Africa, not a cause.

So, then, what is it a symptom of?

Go ahead and answer this very basic question.

And please don't try to fob off any sort of unmitigated balderdash about how Africa is "culturally and materially impoverished".

An ancient german chieftan scoring badly on an alien IQ test is a SYMPTOM of his condition, not a cause of it. When these same people were exposed to certain innovative and revolutionary ideas, they ended up scoring well, largely due to the fact that they came up with the test due to those ideas in the first place.

Tell you what. Why don't you go right ahead and devise a more accurate and "culturally sensitive" IQ test, administer it to millions of people over the course of several decades, then come back and tell us all about the results, emkay?

Until then, please stop attempting to inadequately challenge some very well-established and equally well-proven aspects about human intelligence.

We're obliged to use the tools which we have right now. Innovate all you want, no one is stopping you.

But until you can gather a substantial body of verifiable evidence that refutes this well-established data about IQ and geographical location, please stop whingeing about the minor glitches that exist in how human intelligence is measured.

Just like Islam can be gauged by its fruit, so can Africa. Both are total basket cases and a deficit in overall intelligence certainly seems to signify in either one's utter lack of success or measurable progress.

Since people, including me, enjoy commenting, and since the Baron is too busy to monitor all the comments, would it help if a few people volunteered to monitor the comments? They'd have to swear to apply the rules fairly. This way, people who enjoy long, occasionally OT threads could earn the right to keep them, by putting some work into policing them. I'd do it, I'm often up all night. Even if the volunteers aren't perfect, it would at least solve the problem.

WRT to Fjordman's issue, hey, I'm the one who suggested he have comments by invitation only. No one is obligated to have comments. This isn't a free speech issue, really, it's just that some people enjoy comments more than others, and if someone doesn't enjoy it, there's no point in having it.

cumpa_29: You are right. IQ is a SYMPTOM of Sub-Saharan Africa, not a cause.

Zenster: So, then, what is it a symptom of?

Well, if the IQ tests are correct and verifiable, and Sub-Saharan Africa really is the birthplace of humans (debatable) and Sub-Saharan IQ is actually lower than everyone else on the planet as proved by independent measures like annual income, infant mortality, etc., then I'd say that it proves that all of the high IQ people got out of Dodge over the last x-millenia, leaving a surplus of low IQ people to copulate in each sad successive - and successively violent - generation.

Then again, I also wonder that excessive heat may affect human DNA in a very negative way over x-millenia. So, perhaps we all started out with the same smarts, but theirs were burned off - maybe even in utero - similar to the idea that pregnant women should avoid hot tubs and hot baths.

latté island: I too had that same thought, and I would also offer to monitor controversial threads - except sometimes my comments ARE the controversial ones. :)

Perhaps volunteers could monitor controversial threads, forwarding a list of deleted comments to the Baron to verify. It would be quicker for him to verify the bad comments than to read all of the comments. :)

Since you ask; at issue is a very primitive tribal mindset that, not only results in endless warfare, looting and internecine violence (not to mention genocide), but also contributes to the stalling, if not outright reduction, of IQ and its further development.

It would take more research than I am willing to perform in order to determine which environmental, and then, social factors are Root Causes of this behavioral model.

One only need look at the conduct of America's Black population (in general), to gain an understanding of why Africa is such a basket case (e.g., Mugabe & Zimbabwe).

If you want a prime example, merely consider how Robert Mugabe has dragged down Africa's onetime breadbasket to where it now requires foreign aid for famine relief.

Did the ANC (African National Congress), have even a tiny fraction of the testicular endowment required to criticize (much less censure, perish the effing thought!), Mugabe for cannibalizing the nation that he ostensibly leads?

NO! They simply could not bring themselves to do something that was so obviously demanded by basic morality, if not simple ethics, and thereby showed the world how Africa's political leadership continues to be the same looting, illiterate, grasping, superstitious bunch of warlord-mentality despotic gangster thugs which have always kept that continent shackled to stone age values.

Hi Zenster: OM, grasshopper. It is the seeds of your answer that sow my discontent.

If your "very primitive tribal mindset" is the same as my marker for low IQ, then you are really saying that low IQ "results in endless warfare, looting and internecine violence (not to mention genocide), but also contributes to the stalling, if not outright reduction, of IQ and its further development" which is COMPLETELY compatible with the idea that high IQ people run as far and fast away from low IQ people as they can get BECAUSE it is a de facto sign of intelligence to first avoid and second run away from the results that you list.

I would posit that most people erroneously think that the environmental factor of "lack of food resources" is the reason that early people left Africa.

However, I believe that the environmental factor that caused human migration then (as now) was actually a "lack of peace" caused by the distinctly social behavior of low IQ people using force to obtain high IQ generated resources that were otherwise unavailable to low IQ people with more limited brainpower.

I am also reminded of the saying, "Ain't nobody happy if momma ain't happy!" Violent rape perpetrated on women and children has always been a "feature" of conflict, so mothers have always had a huge incentive to move their offspring away from conflict. Where strong high IQ men might stay to fight other low IQ men (all the while draining valuable time and energy of high IQ men from generating resources - and even then, high IQ men used war to move technology forward), high IQ women would say, "Let's just move away from the nearby violent low IQ men who will always pose a threat to the health and safety - and survival - of our productive high IQ children."

Violence is simply an effective means of obtaining resources for low IQ men - whether those resources are food, sex, or even progeny with high IQs.

And thus, human IQ differentials - as well as human actions today - appear to evidence Darwinian principles where peaceful high IQ people then and now have "voted with their feet" to leave violent low IQ people.

"When (Darwin's Eugenics-founding half-cousin) Galton suggested that publishing research could encourage intermarriage within a 'caste' of 'those who are naturally gifted', Darwin foresaw practical difficulties, and thought it 'the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race', preferring to simply publicise the importance of inheritance and leave decisions to individuals." Wikipedia for Darwin

Regarding the comment issue with Fjordman’s posts; here is my $0.02 worth. I find his essays some of the most insightful, useful, enlightening and necessary of anything out there on the Internet these days. While my thinking does not always follow the same lines as his, I find that my conclusions work out to be invariable the same. I’ve followed his essays here at GoV and elsewhere and always the same thing; one or two trolls show up in the comment section and completely derail any useful discussion that might have occurred. I’ve always found this to be the most disappointing aspect of reading his material; what could of and should have been a launching pad for some very important discussions ends up being just another “failure to launch.”

Rather than curtailing all comments, maybe have a hard limit of two comments per person. With maybe a short third comment allowed for the purposes of clarification of a previous comment only. I’ve generally found that if I can’t communicate what I have to say in two comments, then either I’m not making sense, and I should go back and re-think what I’m trying to say, or no one is bothering to listen, in which case, commenting further is not going to be of any use.

All of these by now thousands of words about various speculative hypotheses of IQ and anthropology are fascinatingly eye-glazing, but frankly they belong in another blog dedicated to issues of abstruse anthropology. Methinks it is Fjordman and all those who like to wax anthropologic, archeologic and/or scientific who should be published elsewhere than on a blog whose emblematic masthead centers on a violent attack at a pivotal moment in history by Muslims against the West. I find it ironic that people prate on about distracting off-topic comments, when the ones doing this are the ones indulging in voluminous perorations on issues peripheral (at best) to the main issue of the meaning of the year 1683.

Egghead, as is so often the case, we are in violent, raucous agreement.

Absent some really concrete evidence, it is impossible to know whether it was environmental or social factors that instigated the great migration out of civilization's cradle. I'll cheerfully admit that your own theories make a lot of sense and rely upon readily deducible circumstances that apply even today.

Hopefully I’m not too late to this thread to make an observation on the IQ question. It’s an old piece of wisdom that notes, “If you can’t find the answer to your question, then maybe you’re asking the wrong question”.

This discussion about the origins of higher IQ’s has proceeded like so many other discussions. It starts by searching for “first causes”, and then looks for a sequential cause-and-effect chain from those first causes to a final outcome. At which point the discussion devolves to a debate between participants about which came first, the chicken or the egg?

This need to find a “cause-and-effect” is a purely human need. Nature doesn’t care how a certain dynamic might get started; nature only concerns itself with the stability of that dynamic once it does get started.

The concept I’ve seen used to describe this notion is to talk about Evolutionary Stable Strategies, or a ESS’s for short .

Rather than a single chain of cause-and-effects, leading from a beginning to an end, what should be looked for are closed loops of mutually supporting cause-and-effects. Rather than a chain, think in terms of vortices or eddies.

So regarding the question, which came first, leaving Africa or higher IQ, nature’s answer is that it doesn’t matter. A somewhat higher IQ than average might well have been the initial impetus for early man to leave Africa and strike out north, or maybe not. The point is that it doesn't matter how it got started. The only important thing, as far as nature is concerned, is that once that movement started, the challenges of living in a colder and seasonal environment would have most certainly, as Fjordman has correctly concluded, selected out for a higher IQ. A higher IQ would have then made early man even more adaptable and resourceful, allowing him to move even farther into the inhospitable lands of Northern Europe.

What is important is the dynamic that occurs between a people’s act of moving north with its resultant selection for higher IQ, which then in turn drives their ability/desire to keep moving north, and so-on and so-on in an cycle that no-doubt repeated itself every few generations.

Note, for those of you used to thinking in a mathematically abstract manner, the dynamic becomes an object in its own right and takes on a reality all its own.

Bottom line, while we humans worry about things like cause-and-effect and efficiency, nature only cares about stability.

Had it not been for the warmer Greeks, Romans and early Judaeo-Christians, the colder more northerly barbarians would have remained a rag-tag welter of roving tribes no better than Third World peoples.

Was it the lower temperatures of central and northern Europe and the British Isles that enabled the epochal process of the "dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants" that led to the stupendous advances of the early modern, and then more modern, West? That seems to be a curious theory at best, and rather Marxianly materialistic.